On Friday, the Supreme Court made it clear that personal liberty cannot be made to wait for bureaucratic processes, holding that a Rajasthan convict's continued incarceration for 24 days despite a court order directing his release amounted to illegal detention. Awarding ₹11 lakh compensation, the Court emphasised that “the liberty of an individual is not a trivial matter.”
Brief facts:
The case arose from a convict's claim that he was unlawfully kept in prison even after securing a court order directing his release on permanent parole. Convicted for offences under Sections 148, 448, 304 Part II read with Sections 149 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, he had served a substantial portion of his sentence when his request for permanent parole was rejected under the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958.
Although the Rajasthan High Court subsequently directed his release subject to furnishing a personal bond and sureties, he continued to remain in custody despite complying with those conditions. A habeas corpus petition eventually led to his release, following which he approached the Apex Court seeking compensation, contending that the additional 24 days spent in prison amounted to illegal detention in violation of his right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Appellant contended that his continued incarceration after the High Court had directed his release and after he had complied with all stipulated conditions was wholly without legal authority. The Counsel argued that the State's failure to implement a binding judicial order violated his right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Relying on Article 9(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, as well as decisions such as Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar & Anr, Khatri (2) v. State of Bihar, and DK Basu v. State of West Bengal, the Counsel submitted that compensation is a recognised constitutional remedy for illegal detention. The Appellant accordingly sought compensation for the 24 days of unlawful custody suffered by him.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The State opposed the claim, arguing that the order granting permanent parole was contrary to Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958, since the Appellant had not undergone the prescribed stages of regular parole. The Counsel submitted that parole does not suspend a sentence and that the Appellant's case could not be equated with unlawful arrest or wrongful confinement. The State further contended that the delay in release occurred because it was considering legal remedies against the parole order and had to complete internal administrative procedures, and therefore, no case for compensation was made out.
Observation of the Court:
The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih observed, “The liberty of an individual is not a trivial matter. The State cannot continue curtailing the same in the face of a court order, on account of its slow bureaucratic processes of taking decisions whether to file appeals in a particular matter or not. If such a view is agreed to by us, it would amount to the liberty of a person being placed sub-par to the decision whether or not to file an appeal which is purely an administrative call. That cannot be countenanced.”
“We may only observe that in Baradakanta Misra v. Bhimsen Dixit, it has been observed by a Bench of three Judges that merely because a certificate of appeal had been sought from the High Court against an order and the same was pending, the binding character of the High Court order does not lose its lustre. This would squarely apply in this case”, added the Bench.
The Bench emphasised that personal liberty is a foundational constitutional value and cannot be subordinated to administrative indecision or bureaucratic processes. Rejecting the State's explanation that it was still considering whether to challenge the release order, the Court held that a person's freedom cannot be kept in abeyance merely because government authorities are deliberating on future legal action.
The Court held that once a competent court directs the release of a person, the order must be complied with unless it is stayed, modified, or set aside by a superior court. Reaffirming the principle of “obey first, appeal later”, the Bench observed that the State could not justify non-compliance by questioning the correctness of the parole order or by citing its internal decision-making process. The Court noted that a judicial order remains binding and enforceable until legally suspended and cautioned that permitting authorities to disregard such orders would strike at the very foundation of the rule of law. It therefore rejected the State's attempt to retrospectively challenge the validity of the release order as a defence for the appellant's continued incarceration.
The Bench further observed that illegal detention is not confined to cases of unlawful arrest and may arise whenever a person is deprived of liberty without lawful authority or contrary to constitutional safeguards. The Court stated that “The deprivation of liberty by the State without lawful authority or in violation of provisions of the Constitution is illegal detention.” The Bench clarified that once parole had been granted and the sureties had been duly verified, the appellant's continued confinement lost legal sanction.
Emphasising that constitutional protections do not diminish upon conviction, the Court remarked, “Just because a person had been convicted does not mean that his rights weigh less on the scales of justice.” Holding that the appellant had suffered 24 days of illegal custody, the Court concluded that compensation was warranted as a public law remedy for violation of Article 21.
The decision of the Court:
The Apex Court allowed the appeal and directed the State of Rajasthan to pay ₹11 lakh as compensation to the Appellant for the 24 days of illegal custody suffered by him after a judicial order had directed his release. The Court held that once a competent court orders the release of a person and no stay operates against that order, continued detention becomes unconstitutional and unlawful.
Case Title: Daudayal Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Case No.: SLP (Crl.) 5036 of 2025
Citation: 2026 Latest Caselaw 469 SC
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Karol, Hon’ble Justice Augustine George Masih
Advocate for the Petitioner: AOR Aishwarya Singh, Adv. Tushar Bathija, Adv. Rishabh Dheer
Advocate for the Respondent: AOR S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Adv. Kshitij Mittal, Adv. Mayank Sharma
Picture Source :